Lavin v. Husted
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16128
6th Cir.2012Background
- Ohio Rev.Code § 3599.45 prohibits campaign contributions to state Attorney General or county-prosecutor candidates from Medicaid providers or those with ownership interests in such providers.
- Plaintiff physicians are Medicaid providers who attempted to contribute to Richard Cordray’s 2010 Ohio AG reelection campaign.
- The Secretary of State refused to accept their contributions based on § 3599.45.
- Plaintiffs sued the Secretary, challenging § 3599.45 as unconstitutional and sought declaratory and injunctive relief in 2010.
- District court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, holding the statute supported by a general corruption-prevention interest and not overly burdensome.
- Appellate issue included standing, redressability, mootness (capable of repetition, yet evading review), and whether the ban was closely drawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and redressability | Plaintiffs suffered First Amendment injury from rejection of contributions; injury traceable to §3599.45. | Secretary argued lack of redressability against him since enforcement lies with AG/prosecutors. | Plaintiffs have standing; redressable by Secretary via enforcement powers. |
| Mootness and repetition | Election-cycle nature makes issue capable of repetition and evading review; same plaintiffs will contribute again. | Case may be moot since 2010 election ended. | Case fits exception to mootness; jurisdiction affirmed. |
| Constitutionality: closely drawn and anti-corruption interest | §3599.45 not narrowly tailored; broad ban punishes many innocent providers. | Ban prevents corruption; contributes to integrity of elections. | Ban not closely drawn; unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (contribution limits require close fit to important government interests)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (fundamental First Amendment interests require narrowly tailored limits)
- Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2010) (demonstration of how a ban furthers an important interest)
- Wis. Right to Life v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to mootness)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1998) (exception to mootness for disputes capable of repetition)
- Carey v. Wolnitzek, 614 F.3d 189 (6th Cir. 2010) (election-law claims and mootness considerations)
- Citizens for Clean Government v. City of San Diego, 474 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2007) (election cases and capable of repetition)
- Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2008) (standing analysis framework)